Pages

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Kind of tired of the atheists, apostates, liberals and heretics whining and complaining and moaning about how they don't like this or that character trait in us, use of sarcasm by us, or use of mockery from T-blog posters.

Steve and I were mentioned as the culprits.

if you don't like it, you're welcome to not read or comment here. No one is forcing you to be here.

if you care only about substance, then respond to our posts (which are all usually at least 95% substance, 5% sarcasm) substantively.

There's no point in telling us how mean we are. That we're insensitive. That you can't take it.

Look, if you want a place to talk about your feelings, then go post here.

Basically, it's not about us and how mean we are.

It's about the modern American idea of tolerance.

Kids are taught in the atheistic, state-enforced public school system that "every one's ideas are equally valid."

Recently, I say a trophy ceremony for Pop Warner Football players. EVERY SINGE TEAM got a trophy. You're all winners! No matter if you're last.

Since we take things so personally, because we're all solipsists, if you refute our arguments or ideas we take that as you refuting US, personally.

Don't give us this tripe about how we're so mean. Even if we were as nice, professional, and as calm as could be, guess what? YOU'D STILL GET OFFENDED.

Why?

'cause you're wrong.

You're wrong. We're right.

That upsets you.

"How dare they say I'm wrong, I'm the center of the universe."

Or,

"How dare they say I'm wrong, no one can be certain about anything. No one can be sure, and we're sure about that!"

Today girls open car doors for guys, pay for dinner, and wear the pants.

Today, men are not men.

Gnosticism rules.

Do away with distinctions!

No one is right, no one is wrong.

We're all equal. No one can be wrong. No one is stupid.

Look, it's pretty simple. If you don't want to get mocked, then don't brag about how you can refute Christianity and how it's "clearly false."

Don't shove your former profession of faith into the spotlight to be used as an argument. Don't tell everyone how much you studied the Bible and how educated at Seminary you were.

Why?

Because we'll call your bluff.

You didn't study the Bible. You studied you OPINION of FEELING about the Bible.

You had Bible studies where the leader asked, "What does this passage say to you."

The you rejected you ignorant and impotent version of Christianity.

Well don't get upset with us that we weren't as gullible as you.

If you use your "knowledge" of Christianity as an argument, then we'll point out how stupid and ignorant you are about the Bible.

I'd also add that you get laughed at because you call us un-Christian for doing the same things that the "war-monger God of the Old testament did." The same thing Jesus did. The same thing the apostle Paul did.

We rightly scoff at you because on the one-hand you criticize the Bible for how mean God and Jesus were, but on the other hand when we don't blow sunshine up your skirts you criticize US for NOT acting like the God you say is so mean and hateful.

When you act like an inconsistent, emotion-driven hack, you get treated like one.

Really, drop it.

Men like Loftus et al. have lost the intellectual battle. All that's left is to attack our character.

It allows you to sleep at night to focus on US rather than the arguments.

Anyway, man up. Quite your whining about how mean we are. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you're not going to pick on substance, don't comment.

If you've never learned the phrase: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," learn it.

Recently, the issue of the framework hypothesis as an alternative to a YEC reading of the text came up in the combox. On the one hand, Vern Poythress is not a YEC. On the other hand, he studied under Kline. Here’s how he evaluates the framework hypothesis in his recent book.

************************************************************

THE STRUCTURAL PATTERN OF 3 DAYS AND ANOTHER 3 DAYS

The framework view argues that the arrangement into six days shows a correlation between the first set of three days and the last set of three days. On the first three days God creates the various regions of the world, and on the last three days he creates “rulers” over those regions. Thus the sun and moon (day 4) rule over day and night (day 1). The birds and the water creatures (day 5) rule over the air and the water, respectively, both of which derive from day 2. The land creatures (day 6) rule over the dry land, which was created on day 3.

This correlation is indeed suggestive. But it stretches its pattern at a few points. The division on day 2 creates waters above the expanse, called “Heaven,” while on day 5 the birds “fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens” (the sky), but do not seem to be conceived of as “ruling” over the heaven. If the creatures from the last three days are conceived of not primarily as ruling over the regions but as filling the regions, then the plants on day 3 might be reckoned, along with the land animals, as filling the dry land. I think that the correlation between the days is real. But it does not seem to be perfect or so emphatically obvious as to control everything else.

More important, the existence of a structural correlation is still compatible with an underlying chronological progression. The correlation between regions and rulers may build on top of chronological progression rather than repudiating all chronology. In fact, the creatures created on days 5 and 6 require for their well-being the previous existence of the regions that are created on days 2 and 3. Hence, the structural pattern seems to confirm that days 5 and 6 follow days 2 and 3.

GENESIS 2:5-6

The framework view usually appeals to Genesis 2:5-6:

“When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground” (Gen. 2:5).

According to the framework view, the remark about the absence of rain and man implies that there was a fairly long period between the creation of plants (day 3) and the creation of man (day 6) (for why otherwise would one be concerned about whether there was any rain or man?). And it implies that, once plants were created by supernatural action, God would sustain their existence through normal means, including rain and human cultivation.

These observations with respect to plants are then extended in order to conclude that after initially creating any of the various particular creatures, God used ordinary means to sustain them. If God used ordinary means to sustain the oscillation of day and night (day 1), those ordinary means would include the movement of the sun and its shining to provide light. Therefore the events of day 1 must be basically simultaneous with the creation of the sun on day 4. Day 1 and day 4 describe overlapping events from two points of view.

These arguments are suggestive; but I personally am not persuaded. For one thing, there are some difficulties in understanding the picture in Genesis 2:5-6 in detail. The word for “mist” in 2:6 is uncommon, and may possibly denote a spring or a source of water from underground. Irons and Kline argue that it is a “rain-cloud.”2 Whatever may be the meaning, it appears, as Kidner argues, that there is already a lot of water even before the rain.3 Hence, the problem, if there is one, may involve not the absence of water for nourishing plants but an abundance, perhaps even an overabundance. Kidner suggests that in 2:5-6 the narrative is returning to the situation of overabundant water that occurred in Genesis 1:2. The narrative takes away the later developments in order now to tell some parts of the story from the standpoint of God’s purposes as they relate to the creation of man. Hence, the taking away of man and of rain is not really a statement about the presence of ordinary providence during the days of creation, but an invitation to go back again in time to the situation before there was either post-creation providence or a highly ordered creation.

Still another alternative presents itself. The language in 2:5b about rain and man may not be so much a comment on what principles God used in sustaining plants during days 4 and 5, but a comment looking forward to the rest of Genesis 2, where man and the garden will be prepared and an ordinary providential order for sustaining the garden will be in place. In fact, it is quite possible that Genesis 2:5-6 is not talking about the situation in the whole expanse of the earth but is focusing on the situation in the area where the garden of Eden will later be planted.4 Plants had not yet sprung up within this limited area. God is planning a transition to a time when ordinary providence will have its role, and in that context we find a natural mention of rain and man.

Kidner’s view or the focus-on-Eden view may or may not be right. Though some parts of verses 5 and 6 are reasonably clear, its overall thrust is debatable. This very debatability suggests that we exercise caution, rather than putting too much weight on it in the crucial debate about the overall structure of the days of Genesis, which after all belong to Genesis 1:1–2:3 rather than the account in Genesis 2:4–4:26.

GENERALIZING ABOUT PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION

Finally, even if the framework view is right in its interpretation of Genesis 2:5-6, those two verses talk about the growth of plants. They say nothing about animals or the sun. The principle in those verses does not necessarily generalize to include all other kinds of providential sustenance for all other creatures. It is still possible that God created light on the first day, and that the light came in some way other than through the shining of the sun. Accordingly, when God creates the sun and moon and stars on the fourth day, these heavenly lights do not produce the initial separation of light from darkness (which occurred already in Gen 1:4) but function as rulers to control and maintain that separation in a regular way. The impression of chronological succession in Genesis 1 has suggested this possibility to a number of interpreters, both ancient and modern.

TWO-REGISTER COSMOLOGY

We must also consider the significance of “two-register cosmology,” as expounded in Meredith Kline’s article, “Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony.” The Old Testament shows us scenes in which God sits enthroned in the midst of angelic servants (1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; Ezek. 1; Dan. 7:9-10; etc.). In Kline’s terminology, such scenes show us the “upper register,” whereas events on earth belong to the lower register.

The idea of God’s heavenly dwelling is indeed taught in Scripture, and was undoubtedly part of the mental furniture of pious Israelites. Moreover, the pictorial comparison between God as king and human kingship belongs together with many analogical comparisons between God and man. The analogical day theory, as well as the framework view, would acknowledge this much.

But in addition Kline says that the days of creation are upper-register days. Does such an appeal to a heavenly register offer a satisfying explanation of time? Here there are difficulties.

First, the existence of an invisible spatial realm in the form of a heavenly scene with angels does not imply the existence of a distinct time dimension with little or no relation to our own. In Job 1:6-12 and 1 Kings 22:19-22, the events within the two spatial realms seem to mesh seamlessly within one time continuum. God makes decisions in heaven, and these are then executed on earth. There is doubtless much mystery here, and the mystery ultimately goes back to God’s incomprehensibility and his eternity. But the depiction in Scripture does not suggest that we need to postulate two distinct created time dimensions, each linked to a distinct created spatial realm. Rather, the power of the depiction depends on our seeing that a tight correlation exists between God’s commands in the heavenlies and their execution on earth. This correlation is depicted as being temporal. God issues a command, at an earlier time, and then it is executed by an angelic being on earth, at a later time.

Second, though Kline finds hints of theophany and an angelic council in Genesis 1:2 and 1:26 (“us”), their significance is debatable. (The heavenly cherubim also appear in Genesis 3:24.) The throne room picture does not play a prominent explicit role in Genesis 1, though it has a bigger role (by way of allusions) in Psalm 104:1-4. We must accordingly be cautious about overplaying its role exegetically in Genesis 1.

ANONYMOUS SAID:Great attack on a fellow christian there Steve. This is because apparently, you answer questions like "explain this real old spear ancient used by your defenseless ancient man" with a four page pablum laden post that basically boils down to "what is time"?

He calls you on it, and you spew hate.

He chews up your arguments, and you spew ad hominems.

Great show!

ANONYMOUS SAID:Steve,

Easy buddy, you sound as if you are about to blow your top! It's hard standing up for something (6 literal day creation or YEC) when even the majority of conservative Reformed seminaries aren't even teaching it anymore. You are truly a dying bread, Steve, but your demeanor is what really worries me.

TOUCHSTONE SAID:

So, is this how you [Paul Manata] would teach your kids to respond in discussion? I've had my 12year old son, who's just learning apologetics and debate, read some of the messages here, and I end up having to warn him away from the tone and attitude of the... Christians here more than anybody else.

I don't wanna call you names. I'd just like you stop arguing against the teaching of Christ by your tone and language, even as you profess to proclaim it with your arguments.

***END-QUOTE***

1.There are some people who are typecast to react in a certain way. They get hysterical at the drop of a hat, and the project their own overwrought emotions onto the blogger.

They react to the very last thing they read, rather than taking into account everything leading up to the last thing they read.

They never actually register everything that was said by both sides. Instead, they have their antennae twitching to pick out certain words or phrases which set them into a frenzy of sputtering indignation.

They react to tone rather than substance, and even then they are conspicuously lop-sided in what they find offensive.

2.They also operate with Hallmark card version of Christ and Christian ethics, decorated with fawns and bunny rabbits and bare-bottomed cherubs.

They like to quote Mt 5, but they don’t like to quote Mt 23. They forget that Jesus is also a warrior-king (Rev 19).

They carry around their Hallmark card notion of how professing Christians are supposed to treat other professing Christians. They never attempt to check this against the detailed practice of the NT.

Now, what a lot of critics overlook is that all these false teachers were (or will be) professing Christians.

The fact that someone calls himself a Christian doesn’t prevent the NT from attacking his theology if his theology is aberrant. Not only attacking his theology, but attacking his character. And the NT is very public in its denunciations.

So, the popular idea that just because someone calls himself a Christian, it is unchristian for us to “attack” his theology or theological method is, itself, unchristian.

Some people try to counter this by quoting what the Apostle John has to say about loving the brethren in 1 John.

But to quote that as if it forbade us from critiquing false theology is to quote it out of context. As D. A. Carson, in his WTJ article entitled “Reflections on Christian Assurance,” pointed out, this is the polar opposite of what John had in mind.

In 1 John, the Apostle is attacking false teachers. And he is attacking them because they are undermining the faith of the faithful.

When he talks about loving the brethren, he isn’t talking about false teachers. To the contrary, the false teachers are unloving by the way they undermine the faith of the faithful. And, for that very reason, St. John opposes the false teachers in no uncertain terms.

4.I’d also note that the Evangelutionist has been quite harsh in his characterization of YECs.

***QUOTE***

The YEC view is only viable as an exercise in mysticism. It’s a “flat earth” or geocentric astronomy equivalent. So my rationale for higher criticism doesn’t stem at all from a desire to diminish the truth or authority of the Bible, but rather to uphold it, because the YEC literalist view just isn’t a serious view of scripture. It scoffs at God’s Word as something that is really true in the real world. I only need to have you read Steve’s recent replies to me as powerful evidence of this. The unbelievers see YEC theology, then think about what they know about God’s creation, even not knowing or admitting who created it all, and they see YEC theology as a powerful argument that Christianity is cynical hoax, the Gospel a lie. It’s only true if you can mysticalize yourself and tie yourself in horrible philosophical meta-scientific existential knots.

So my rationale for my “higher criticism” is this: YEC theology is cyanide for the spread of the Gospel. It’s Dawkins most powerful asset. He’s got nothing, nothing close to the powerful argument he has in merely pointing reasonable, honest folk at guys like Steve, and you, from what you’ve said here.

Is that good enough? Is the fact that your brittle, anachronistic, reductionist interpretive frameworks produce absurdities, logical contradictions and cascading conundra that drive people who think *away* from Christ a good enough reason to wonder if maybe you’ve got things off a bit?

***END-QUOTE***

So don’t rewrite the history of the thread and cast the Evangelutionist in the role of the lamblike victim of an unprovoked attack. He initiated the attack on YEC.

There was nothing in my original post on “Adam and evolution” that couldn’t be written by an OEC.

He chose to turn this into a debate over YEC, and he uses a number of choice words to characterize the ramifications of that position: “It’s a ‘flat earth’ or geocentric astronomy equivalent”; “It scoffs at God’s Word”; “cyanide…a cynical hoax…and a lie.”

5.Let us also remind ourselves of what is at stake. This is how he himself has cast the issue:

***QUOTE***

You're apparently unhappy with science's epistemic foundation of methodological materialism, the same epistemic that flourished from the time of Newton and so many other God-fearing men of science. It's precisely this axiom of MM that keeps science right in its box where it belongs. MM restricts science from wandering into areas where it has no foundation.

These are mythic elements, the talking serpent, the trees with supernatural capabilities. They are perfectly true in that convey a real history – the fall of man from the commission of sin. But the device used is figurative, and symbolic. If you were to pick up a text that you were told was “true”, but contained the account of trees with supernatural, cosmic powers, and a talking serpent along with a pair of humans, would you suppose that the truth was *scientific* in its telling, or moral/figurative?

Does Wise identify Genesis as similar in form to other, competing cosmogonies of that time? Would he find similarities for the book of Nehemiah in Babylonian mythology as exist between Genesis and Enuma Elish, or the Gilgamesh epic? Those are manifestly mythic texts, and I can’t see that Wise would be unfamiliar with those comparisons.

I’m undecided if Adam was a real individual or not. I’m inclined to think he was, but only tentatively. And I don’t see that it matters, theologically, morally or spiritually one way or another.

I’m amazed you feel comfortable saying “perfectly”, though. I can anticipate your saying: “it’s not obviously non-historical” or something like that (which I would still take issue with), but “perfectly”? You don’t see trees with cosmic magical trees and a talking snake in a story about the spiritual fate of all mankind to be even *somewhat* of a bell going off in your head about the natural historical claims the text is making? I’m incredulous.

When it reads like myth, fable, or dream, or something quite apart from a historical account, even a historical account with miracles, it’s time to consider a different interpretation. For instance, do you suppose the serpent was just a serpent, albeit a more clever one than the other herpetological creatures all around? Or is the serpent a symbol? Is it a real serpent *and* a symbol of the Devil? Or maybe just a symbol for the devil, allegorical language for an actual eve’s temptation inside her head?

***END-QUOTE***

1.Methodological naturalism

2.Genesis as mythology, including:

i) The ahistoricity of Adam

ii) The ahistoricity of the Fall

So he’s gone far beyond a repudiation of YEC chronology, but let’s begin with that.

Now, you may disagree with Hasel, but you can’t be serious about Biblical if you dismiss his exegetical arguments out of hand.

2.I also posted some excerpts of a lecture by James Barr on Biblical chronology. This is, to some extent, an abbreviated version of a much longer article of his which I’ve also referenced.

In this course of this material, Barr, an ultra liberal OT scholar and world-renowned Hebraist, makes several points:

i) He documents the fact that what we now classify as YEC chronology represents the traditional Judeo-Christian interpretation up until modern times.

ii) He walks the reader through the process by which that chronology is derived.

iii) He points out that this chronology is not a side issue, but reflects the historical consciousness of the Bible writers, and that efforts on the part of modern theologians to devalue Bible chronology is a rearguard action that fails to identify with the narrative viewpoint of the Bible writers themselves.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/biblical-chronology.html

Once again, you can try to take issue with Barr’s analysis, but to act as if YEC chronology is absolutely intolerable, and proceed to demonize it as a “hoax,” a “lie,” or “cyanide,” is hardly a Bible-honoring attitude.

3. But that’s not the only issue. What about the classification of Genesis 1-11 as mythology?

What about the attempt to dehistoricize Adam and the Fall?

4.Then, to top it off, is the whole matter of methodological naturalism, which is simply a euphemism for methodological atheism.

It is nothing short of blasphemous for a professing Christian historian or Christian scientist to operate as if God did not exist—as if all historical or prehistorical events can be and should explained on a purely naturalistic basis, so that God’s existence or nonexistence is empirically equivalent.

Friday, November 24, 2006

"Oh, I don’t suppose I can prove *anything*. You have Steve here who can explain that the hand your typing with isn’t really there, or at least not in such a way that we can prove it."

Yet another characteristic example of Touchstone's habitual dissembling. The Evangelutionist is a quick-change artist. He has two costumes.

When he's trying to oppose YEC in general or my position in particular, he pulls on his blue overhauls, dons a straw hat, breaks out his corncob pipe, and assumes the aw-shucks posture of the common man.

From his rockin' chair, there is no gap between appearance and reality. Don't go givin' me none of that hokum and bunkum about creation ex nihilo or metrical conventionalism.

In his man-on-the-street routine he spouts the same "common sense" philosophy as the geocentrist and flat-earther. The sky is blue, grass is green, and you can disprove idealism by kicking a rock.

But when he's trying to defend the scientific establishment generally or theistic evolution in particular, he pulls a Clark Kent on us. Rushing to the nearest phone booth, he emerges in a white lab jacket, with crazy hair, and a Teutonic accent.

In his Einstein impersonation, he lectures the backwoods YECs on the twin paradox and Schrödinger's schizophrenic cat.

He reminds the Bible-thumpin' lumpen that roses aren't *really* red, solid doors aren't *actually* solid, stars are far older than they look, and consciousness is a quaint old relic of folk psychology.

Ex-apologist offered another response to my particular resolution to his alleged dilemma between Jesus' promise to return to "that generation" and his (apparent) failure to "keep his promise." And so rather than respond in his combox, I'll do it on the main page again.

Hi EA,

So now your case is that because similar language is used that implies identical events? How's that argument go? Similarity implies identity?

So the question is, does the Bible use similar language to refer to different events in other cases? Yes, Christ cleansed the temple twice, but in different ways. There is a spiritual resurrection, and a bodily one. &c.

Now, let's look at your specific case (though my points above are enough to throw the burden off myself and back on to you, I'll still proceed):

Let's quote 1 Thess 4:

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

And let's quote the relevant portion in Matt. 24:

29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

And so Exapologist says that these two events:

"1. The Lord (or Son of Man in the Gospel passages) descends with the trump of an angel.

2. The gathering of the elect. "

imply that the exact same thing is being referred to. I don’t think so. Here’s his argument for why they’re the same:

“On a natural interpretation, the sequence that Jesus lists in the Gospel passages and the sequence that Paul lists in 1 Thess. refer to the same event.”

I obviously don’t find that terribly compelling, for some odd reason.

Anyway, here’s my argument for why they’re not the same:

THE TRUMPET BLAST

1) I already showed that “heavenly body” language (e.g., stars, moons) is used over and over in the Old Testament to refer to a shift or a destruction of authority.

2) The shift in authority is that Jesus now reigns. He’s the King. This is the ending of the Old Covenant people of God. The unfaithful, whore bride, Israel. Jesus ushers in the last days.

3) I argued that “coming on the clouds” is Old Testament judgment language.

4) None of this has been dealt with.

5) Notice that some events are different, or non-existent. So why doesn’t this count against exapologist’s reading? He seems a bit arbitrary, picking and choosing.

6) Notice that the language is roughly similar, but it’s not the same:

a) The Lorddescends with a loud trumpet in 1 Thess, but he sends out the messengers with a loud trumpet in Matt 24.

b) Matt 24 does not say “gathering the elect,” and so why does he assume these are the same events?

7) Thus exapologist’s argument is similar, but not identical, to Swiss Cheese.

8) Since I showed differences between the trumpet soundings in both passages, here’s my view of the trumpet sounding in Matt 24:

What’s going on here is that Christ sends his “messengers” (aggeloi should be translated messenger, as it is elsewhere) to preach the gospel, gathering in the elect. Chilton states,

“The word angels simply means messengers (cf. James 2:25), regardless of whether their origin is heavenly or earthly; it is the context which determines whether these are heavenly creatures being spoken of. The word often means preachers of the gospel (see Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:24; 9:52; Rev. 1-3). In context, there is every reason to assume that Jesus is speaking of the worldwide evangelism and conversion of the nations which will follow upon the destruction of Israel.”

9) In 1 Thessalonians 4, the trumpet is used to announce Jesus descending. In Matt 24 it is used in reference to the sending out of messengers.

10) Once a little work is put into it we see that his reading isn’t “the natural” reading. It’s the lazy one.

THE GATHERING OF THE ELECT.

11) Exapologist’s other move is to say the events are the same because of “the gathering of the elect.”

12) Much of the same points made above can be made here:

a) Similarity does not imply identity.

b) The accounts are not even similar.

13) In my view the “gathering of the elect” in Matthew 24 is nicely summarized by David Chilton in Paradise Restored:

“Christ's use of the word gather is significant in this regard. The word, literally, is a verb meaning to synagogue; the meaning is that with the destruction of the Temple and of the Old Covenant system, the Lord sends out His messengers to gather His elect people into His New Synagogue. Jesus is actually quoting from Moses, who had promised: "If your outcasts are at the ends of heaven, from there the LORD your God will synagogue you, and from there he will take you" (Deut. 30:4, Septuagint). Neither text has anything to do with the Rapture; both are concerned with the restoration and establishment of God's House, the organized congregation of His covenant people. This becomes even more pointed when we remember what Jesus had said just before this discourse:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to synagogue your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your House is being left to you desolate! (Matt. 23:37-38).

Because Jerusalem apostatised and refused to be synagogued under Christ, her Temple would be destroyed, and a New Synagogue and Temple would be formed: the Church. The New Temple was created, of course, on the Day of Pentecost, when the Spirit came to indwell the Church. But the fact of the new Temple's existence would only be made obvious when the scaffolding of the Old Temple and the Old Covenant system was taken away. The Christian congregations immediately began calling themselves "synagogues" (that is the word used in James 2:2), while calling the Jewish gatherings "synagogues of Satan" (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). Yet they lived in anticipation of the Day of Judgment upon Jerusalem and the Old Temple, when the Church would be revealed as the true Temple and Synagogue of God. Because the Old Covenant system was "obsolete" and "ready to disappear" (Heb. 8:13), the writer to the Hebrews urged them to have hope, "not forsaking the synagoguing of ourselves together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the Day approaching" (Heb. 10:25; cf. 2nd Thess. 2:1-2).

The Old Testament promise that God would "synagogue" His people undergoes one major change in the New Testament. Instead of the simple form of the word, the term used by Jesus has the Greek preposition epi prefixed to it. This is a favorite New Covenant expression, which intensifies the original word. What Jesus is saying, therefore, is that the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 will reveal Himself as having come with clouds to receive His Kingdom; and it will display His Church before the world as the full, the true, the super-Synagogue.”

14) There’s no talk of those dead and those alive “in Christ” in Matt 24.

15) There’s no talk of “the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” in 1 Thess. 4.

16) What does the four winds mean?

a) Usually over the earth, or known land: Jeremiah 49:36 I will bring against Elam the four winds from the four quarters of the heavens; I will scatter them to the four winds, and there will not be a nation where Elam's exiles do not go.

b) Likewise, “from one end of heaven to the other” implies the same.

c) Does the Bible use “whole world” language to imply known world? Put differently, does the Bible assume that the gospel has been preached to the “four winds” or “whole earth” in the sense Matt. 24 means it? I think a good case can be made:

Colossians 1:5-6 because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth;

Colossians 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Romans 16:25-26 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith;

17) Matt 24 says nothing about being “caught up in the air with the Lord.”

18) Matt 24 is talking about Christ’s judgment upon Jerusalem, as well as the accompanying prophecies which occurred in the first century, 1 Thess. 4 is talking about the second advent. Believers will actually be with Jesus.

19) There are some big differences between Matt. 24 and 1 Thess. 4 The similarity = identity hermeneutic employed by Exapologist is flawed and fallacious. There are no time texts in 1 Thess. 4. The resurrection is mentioned in 1 Thess. 4, not in Matt 24. The resurrection comes at the end, after Jesus has put all His enemies under his feet (this has not happened yet).

20) Exapologist’s fine brash argument has died the death of a thousand assumptions and assertions. What started out as an argument against Christianity turns out to be an argument for Christianity. Jesus promised that not one stone would be left upon another. Because of rumors that gold may have been hidden in the stonework of the Temple, the Roman soldiers completely tore apart the Temple, fulfilling Jesus prophecy that not one stone would be left upon another.

This was a huge prophecy, yet no one in the New Testament mentions it? One would think that if the NT writers had “invented” the prophecy, and they wrote the NT after 70 AD, then they would have noted that Jesus fulfilled his prophecy. But there’s nary a word. Silence. And in my view that’s because the temple was still standing when the writers of the NT wrote their letters.

1. After reading your comments, it appears you're working with a false or erroneous definition regarding allegory and symbolism (or typology). More often than not, you seem to use the terms "symbolism" and "allegory" interchangeably. By definition, an allegory is not literal or real. Symbols, however, can be either literal or not. But you've conflated the two together. Or perhaps mistaken them entirely.

For example, you cited Animal Farm. To answer your question, yes, I believe we can agree the novel is an allegory. George Orwell himself indicates this. Animal Farm tells a story involving talking pigs, cows, and other barnyard animals. The main allegory is an association with communism as it plays out in the former Soviet Union under Stalin. But the story itself is not real. It did not literally take place as George Orwell relates it to us. The talking barnyard animals are not real. There are no real life pigs named Napoleon or Snowball. Or a horse named Boxer in real life. These are imaginary animals created for the purposes of the allegory.

However, they do relate to real figures. Napoleon and Snowball are symbols. Most obviously, they are symbolic of Stalin and Trotsky. But they might also be symbolic of those persons who are Stalinistic or Trotskyite, who share their ideals, temperament, etc. And Boxer is a symbolic of the average working-class Russian proletariat. Or perhaps all proletariats in a socialist or communist nation.

These are some of the differences between allegory and symbolism.

2. Regarding the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

a. Your initial words on the topic were quite firm that the trees should be regarded as literal trees. But now it appears you've shifted your position to a vaguer one that they could be either literal or literal and symbolic:

I don't see a case either way as to whether the tree of life was primarily symbolic (described as a "tree" in scripture, but actually a kind of, I dunno... a special kind of crop with super life-giving grain?), or both symbolic and literal. In either case, the important truth is the symbolic, metaphysical one: eating of it had "cosmic consequences" - defiance of the natural decay and aging processes.

b. Speaking for myself, I can take the trees as literal trees imbued with Scriptural symbolism.

c. If you take the trees as both literal and symbolic, you've still previously noted you believe Gen. 1-3 to be allegorical. An allegory is not a literal, real life story. What you're saying, then, is you believe in a literal and symbolic tree (which I, too, would affirm), but you believe the tree exists in a passage which is allegorical (which I would deny).

That's like saying you believe Sherlock Holmes is a literal, flesh and blood detective who symbolizes intelligence (or whatever), and who is found in a work of fiction. It's true the Sherlock Holmes stories are fictional, and it's true Sherlock Holmes is symbolic of certain things, but it's not at all true that he is a real life, flesh and blood detective (although he could be based on a real life detective, but obviously that's not the same thing as saying he is a real life detective).

d. Of course, I'll gladly accept if you concede that what you really meant was that Gen. 1-3 should be read literally and symbolically, not as allegory. Because then we'd be in agreement.

3. This doesn't mean that the Scriptures cannot be read allegorically. But the question is, does the text exegetically warrant an allegorical reading?

Again, to take Animal Farm as an example, we know it does warrant an allegorical reading. For one, because its author, George Orwell, has made it known he wrote Animal Farm as allegory. Likewise the form of the book itself is allegorical.

In regard to Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11, however, you've yet to prove your case that the text does exegetically warrant an allegorical reading.

At this point, insofar as I can tell, all you've proven is that there are symbols in Genesis. Adam and Eve, the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent, etc. are symbolic of certain things. What you seem to have done, though, is noticed the symbolism and immediately assumed that this must then imply the Genesis account of creation is therefore allegorical.

But it's not enough that there's symbolism in the text for the text to be allegorical. The form of the text itself must be an allegory. In other words, you have to demonstate that the text itself (Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11) is an allegory, not that parts of the text make use of symbols.

Again, the question is, on what exegetical grounds do you read read Gen. 1-3 as allegory?

4. Regarding your question about systematic theology:

However, I believe you’re resistance to the allegory and broader symbolism in God’s word is likely tied to the culture context of contemporary conservative evangelical Christianity. You’re exegetical assumptions are perfectly reductionist, so far as I can see – would you endorse a systematic theology for the Bible? Post-enlightenment? I think you are approaching the bible from a post-enlightenment cultural context? Do you say you are not? These are artifacts of the Protestant Reformation. If you would consider yourself “Reformed”, then you’re very much approaching this from that angle, I suggest. But no matter, I don’t know if you subscribe to Reformed theology/exegesis or not. You haven’t said, or if you did, I missed it.

However, the “no argument”, “can’t be”, “perfectly lines up” clues are definitely there, as I see it, that you bring a set of expectations to scripture that are reductive, exhaustive, and systematic. That’s no more perjorative than saying you’re “Reformed”. That’s not an epithet at all to Reformed people.

a. Would I "endorse a systematic theology for the Bible"? I would endorse understanding the Bible on its own terms, in light of how the original author(s) would want his target audience to understand his words, and forming a systematic theology out of this.

b. Yes, I happen to be Reformed in my systematic theology. But I don't necessarily allow my systematic theology to dictate my exegesis of Scripture. Actually, it's the other way around. One's exegesis of Scripture should dictate one's systematic theology.

c. It's true I bring a set of expectations to Scripture. As I just mentioned, one expectation is that Scripture should be understood on its own terms, in light of how the original author(s) would want his target audience to understand his words. Another is that Scripture should be internally consistent as a whole.

Among other problems, your position that Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should be read allegorically is inconsistent with your position that the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Adam and Eve (possibly) literally existed.

d. But you, too, bring a set of expectations to Scripture. Whether you realize it or not, you're also working with certain assumptions and expectations when you approach the Bible. Such as that certain parts of the Bible should be read as allegory without argument. While I don't doubt that certain parts of the Bible can be read allegorically, if they should be is another question which depends on whether the text warrants it.

But without an exegetically sound argument for why Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should be read as allegory, you're at best only engaging in a ruse. It's all smoke and mirrors.

In short, you've not proven on a fair exegesis of the text that Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should be read as allegory. You've only assumed it should.

This started out as a well-meaning wristband, but quickly took on a life of its own. You have people who slap this slogan on the pet cause du jour, from stem cell research and global warming to vegan cuisine and abortion on demand. Many people who now mouth this slogan couldn’t name the four gospels.

Recently, some nullifidians have joined the bandwagon by quoting this slogan back to Christians.

It’s funny how so many unbelievers think they’re experts on Christian ethics. They constantly try to hold Christians to unscriptural standards, then scream “hypocrisy”! if we don’t live up to their pseudo-Christian criteria.

WWJD?

How would I answer that question? Simple. If I were Jesus, I could give you an answer, but since I’m not, I don’t know the answer.

To put my words in his mouth is a blasphemous exercise. So I’m not going to tell you what Jesus would do. And you’re in no position to tell me what Jesus would do.

WWJD? is not a Christian code of conduct. The question we need to ask ourselves isn’t, “What would Jesus do?” but, “What did Jesus do?” and “What will Jesus do?”

To speculate on what Jesus would do is, at best, mock piety, and, at worst, a pretext to forge his signature beneath our personal agenda.

Many people who toss this slogan around are far more interested in what Jesus would do—meaning, what they would do if they could play Jesus for a day, and Jesus was just like one of them—than they are in what he has actually done (as the Savior), and what he’s going to do in the future (as the Judge).

One thing I would do is to throw away the wristband and open the Bible.

John Loftus moseyed into our combox, cowboy hat 'n all, and tried to show that there was a new sheriff in town. Let's look at his response:

"I believe Preterism, or even partial preterism, is a frank concession of the fact that Jesus did not return as was expected from the earliest days of Christianity until recently. It’s one thing for skeptics to scoff, it's quite another to see Christians re-invent their eschatology to accommodate this glaring problem."

1. What's he talking about? What was the "return" that the early church expected? A bodily one? The one where Jesus comes to judge the living and the dead, etc? Well, "partial-preterism" doesn't think that this "return" has happened. So it looks like Loftus doesn't understand either partial-preterism or early church history. Which is it partner?

2. Partial-preterism is a hermeneutical principle. Since the early church many have understood certain passages in a partial-preterist sense.

3. Do your homework and check out something like this for a more thorough refutation of your views.

4. Early church eschatology was largely undeveloped. The believed in a future resurrection, judgment, and coming of our Lord. As do I. But for the most part they were silent on other matters. They were debating other topics. Furthermore, it only confirms the Bible to point out that the church is growing in understanding (cf. Eph 4).

" had already mentioned on the Unchained Radio program and in a Blog entry how believers read the Bible through the lenses of their present experiences when it comes to the creation accounts in Genesis, women's roles in leadership, and slavery. Both Paul Manata and Gene Cook disputed that they do this. But here is a case where Manata has done just that."

5. That's odd. I used the Bible to interpret the meaning of the passages, but yet I'm the one reading the Bible with 21st century goggles on.

6. No, it can't be John. I mean, after all, it's not 21st century of him to assume that Jesus' coming on the clouds means that Jesus will be surfing clouds to earth, is it?

7. How has "Manata done just that?" Do we see analysis? Argumentation? No, he's shooting blanks! No cowboy should ever go to a gunfight unarmed.

8. At any rate, Loftus must do that also. And so why should we trust his reading of Scripture. To the extent that his objection works, then, it doesn't allow him to criticize the Bible!

9. But if John Loftus can transcend his cultural conditioning, so can we. If not, why can John Loftus, but not us? Either way, either he's wrong or he can't critique the Bible. Which one is it, John?

"Now here's the question for Manata. Why can he do this with the return of Jesus and I cannot do this with the present day lack of miracles occurring today? He reinterprets the historical church understanding of eschatology in light of 2000 plus years of experiences, including several recent failed predictions of the return of Jesus in 1974, 1988, and 2000. So why is it illegitimate for me the see the creation accounts in Genesis as myth because of present day modern science?"

10. Do what with the "present day lack of miracles?"

11. Since miracles are extraordinary events, aren't there always a "lack" of them?

12. John betrays his ignorance. There was no such thing as "the early church's eschatology." To the extent that they talked eschatology in any unified way, I'm in full agreement. Jesus has not returned to judge the living and the dead.

13. Who knows what "failed predictions" regarding the return of Jesus has to do with anything. Indeed, given my postmillennial leanings, I think the second advent is a ways off.

14. Yes, it's illegitimate of you to see the creation account as a myth because of "modern day science." This is a red-herring though. Nonetheless:

a) There is not such thing as a unified opinion on the creation account given by "modern science."

c) This assumes a realist understanding of science and, to my understanding, you've never answered Steve's repeated request for you to argue for realism.

All I did as a former believer was to attempt to reconcile modern science with Genesis, just as he does with the failed bodily return of Jesus?

15. Notice that his entire attack is an ad hominem one. He never bothers to address my post.

16. There was no failed bodily return of Jesus since it hasn't happened yet.

17. He must be assume that when Jesus said they would see him coming on the clouds that that meant that everyone would see a 6ft (or so) figure surfing the clouds to earth.

18. Loftus just doesn’t like my approach because it handles the objections. But then he cries, “No fair! You’re cheating!” You know, like those kids on the playground who get skunked in pick-up football games and have to resort to the “he cheated” tactic in order to make them feel better about loosing, or to get an advantage. If my "reconciliation" works, it works. Loftus needs to engage his opponent. So, if Loftus really had "reconciled science with Genesis," then where would the problem be? Likewise, if I have "reconciled" certain passages, then where's the problem? Thus it boils down to my interpretation of the passages. Thus John needs to engage my post. My interpretation. Why does he assume that he can just name drop, act skeptical, but refuse to actually do his homework and engage in debate? I'll tell you why: That's how apostates sleep at night. If they refuse to study the Bible, they can come up with objections all day long. Just like, well, Loftus' Bird Man argument.

19. So fellow believers, be encouraged. Right now you have your wits about yourself, leave Christianity you'll start doing drive by posts with no intellectual weight behind them, and then claiming that God should have made men with wings so they could fly and gills so they wouldn't drown.

20. After this Thanksgiving, thank the Lord that you're still in the faith.

Though I take a partial-preterist position, I likewise think that my fellow bloggers on T-blog who do not share my interpretive schema could also easily answer Exapologist.

At any rate, here's the informal discussion (Exapologist's post is in red):

Ex-Apologist,

It appears that if the partial-preterist is correct, then your case crumbles.

I note that you didn't even address this.

Jesus' coming inaugurated the "last days" as well as "the kingdom of heaven."

Your number one flaw is your *assumption* that "the last days" refers to the "end of the world as we know it, in a physical/cosmic sense."

But that was nowhere defended.

Jesus did "come on the clouds" as he promised.

The Bible uses the language of "coming on the clouds" to refer to God's judgment. Look at Isa.19:1; Ps. 68:4; Ps. 97:2,3; for example.

So, you may choose to read the Bible with your 21st century goggles on - thinking that Jesus really intends to convey that he's really surfing some clouds toward earth - but how would the Israelite hearers have understood Jesus? After all, they were very familiar with the "coming on clouds" language.

The only problem is that you're reading the Bible while importing your understanding of terms like "last days" and "coming on the clouds" into the text.

John "drops" the kingdom or eschaton verses because Revelation is John's extended "kingdom/eschaton" talk. It's his extended Olivet Discourse.

So, Jesus came back exactly when he promised he would. The fact that you read your interpretation into the text doesn't cause us problems.

Hence you should re-name your post: "If I misrepresent the Bible, Christianity is Pretty Clearly False."

Hello Paul,

Actually, I *did* mention the partial preterist position in connection with N.T. Wright's version of it. I didn't develop it because I agree with William Lane Craig that it's a transparently absurd position. It's worth quoting Craig's critique of Wright's partial preterism (which occurred in his review of Wright's tome on the resurrection of Jesus) at some length in this connection (sorry, but I can't resist using a greater apologist to refute a lesser apologist):

"...Wright defends in his earlier books [i.e. his books prior to his tome on the resurrection of Jesus]...the view that Jesus' prophecies of the coming of the Son of Man in judgment were fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. Wright repeatedly asserts that Jews did not anticipate "the end of the space-time universe" at the coming of the Kingdom of God, but a shift within history. I wondered in reading those earlier works how Wright would interpret Paul's teaching that the general resurrection of the dead would take place at Christ's return (I Thess. 4:13; 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 51-54), teaching which was given prior to AD 70. Surely Wright did not believe tht the predicted resurrection took place in AD 70? Certainly not; Wright maintains that the second stage of the resurrection remains future. But if that is the case, in what principled way can we discriminate prophecies concerning Christ's return in AD 70 from those concerning his final return? Are we really to think that Paul, writing in the AD 50s, took the return of Christ and the attendant resurrection to be something different than the return predicted by Jesus and anticipated by the early church (Mk. 13)?" Craig, William Lane. "Review of N.T. Wright's "Christian Origins and the Question of God Vol. 3: The Resurrection of the Son of God"", Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 22, No. 2 (April 2005), pp. 241-242.

Or perhaps you want to say that William Lane Craig is misrepresenting the Bible as well?

Also, you mentioned the Book of Revelation as John's place where he has his full say about the eschaton. If you want to identify the Book of Revelation with John's predictions of the eschaton (leaving to the side the fact that few NT scholars will side with you about Johannine authorship of the Book of Revelation), then, as I said in my post, theauthor identifies the beast with Nero, provides an independent deadline for the eschaton -- including the general resurrection and the final judgment -- to within the lifetime of Nero.

Again, this view about Jesus isn't idiosyncratic with me. I'm just summarizing mainstream, middle-of-the-road scholarship on this matter.

Regards,

exapologist

Hi EA,

I know you *did* "mention" the partial preterist position. But "addressing" whether or not the position is "correct" is not the same thing as "mentioning" the partial preterist position.

At any rate, much more capable partial preterists should be consulted, but for now we'll have to deal with your borrowing Craig to refute Wright to refute me.

"Wright repeatedly asserts that Jews did not anticipate "the end of the space-time universe" at the coming of the Kingdom of God, but a shift within history."

That's right, though the Jews did interpret the Messianic kingdom as a political kingdom, rather than spiritual.

One thing is clear, even as you quoted, the kingdom was "near" and "immanent."

Indeed, your citing of Craig, and calling the partial preterist position "absurd," serves as an argument against you. You argue that the Bible means to imply that these things (i.e., the last days, the kingdom of heaven, etc) are "near." And so how is citing someone who does not think those things are "near" help you, at all? Indeed, why is my position "absurd," when it claims that many of those things you mentioned did occur in that generation? My position affirms much of what you wrote, yet you call my position "absurd." I can only infer from this that you must think your post is absurd! If you don't think your "immanent" interpretation is "absurd" then why think mine is? Thus it turns out that your position is the absurd one!

So, I agree that many of those things were fulfilled, I just disagree with your understanding of "last days" to mean "the destruction of the physical earth."

The old covenant days were called "the former days" (mal. 3:4), while the advent of Jesus ushered in "the last days" (Heb. 1:1-2), the new covenant days.

"I wondered in reading those earlier works how Wright would interpret Paul's teaching that the general resurrection of the dead would take place at Christ's return (I Thess. 4:13; 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 51-54), teaching which was given prior to AD 70."

Easy:

1. I argued that Christ did return in judgment against apostate Israel. But, that is not "the second advent." The two are not the same.

2. The partial preterist position says that some eschatological prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD, not all.

3. Craig is equivocation of Christ's "return." His bodily return? His spiritual return in judgment? Craig doesn't tell us. Indeed, that Craig would even say what he did indicates that he's actually quite ignorant of the preterist position. For you to quote him indicates the same about you.

4. Therefore, my position makes clarifications and specifications which avoid all these "problems" you pose. Now, I guess you can continue to call it "absurd," but I'm not really bothered by your opinion on the matter.

"Surely Wright did not believe that the predicted resurrection took place in AD 70? "

That’s right.

"But if that is the case, in what principled way can we discriminate prophecies concerning Christ's return in AD 70 from those concerning his final return?"

Well, one way would be to take the passages with time texts associated with them seriously.

There is no time text in, say, I Corinthians 15, there are in Matt. 24, etc.

Of course, this was all noted by Ex-apologist himself. Ex-apologist doesn't agree with Craig, yet he uses Craig to refute me. Strange.

So, when the text says that something is going to happen soon, we assume it will happen soon. if it does not, why assume what it talks about will happen soon?

If Craig does not use this interpretive tool, then how does he get around all the time texts that Ex-apologist points out?

"Are we really to think that Paul, writing in the AD 50s, took the return of Christ and the attendant resurrection to be something different than the return predicted by Jesus and anticipated by the early church (Mk. 13)?"

Well, yeah.

Since when do questions substitute for arguments, anyway?

In Mark 13 1-30 Jesus does predict His return, doesn't he? He says,

"30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

See, Jesus "predicted" his return, and he said that the generation he was speaking to would witness this return.

How would the Jewish hearers have understood this passage:

"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory."

Would those Jews, who knew the Old Testament very well mind you, think they meant that Jesus would be surfing clouds to earth? Or would they remember passages like this:

Isaiah 19

1 An oracle concerning Egypt: See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him,and the hearts of the Egyptian melt within them.

Psalm 68:4

4 Sing to God, sing praise to his name, extol him who rides on the clouds his name is the LORD— and rejoice before him.

Psalm 97:2

2 Clouds and thick darkness surround him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.

How about when they heard things like this:

Mark 13: 24"But in those days, following that distress, "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.

Would they remember other passages in the Old Testament where stars and heavenly bodies were used to represent authorities and the judgment of authorities?

Chilton comments (Paradise Restored, ch. 11):

...[T]hese heavenly lights are used to speak of earthly authorities and governors; and when God threatens to come against them in judgment, the same collapsing-universe terminology is used to describe it. Prophesying the fall of Babylon to the Medes in 539 B.C., Isaiah wrote:

Behold, the Day of the LORD is coming,

Cruel, with fury and burning anger,

To make the land a desolation;

And He will exterminate its sinners from it.

For the stars of heaven and their constellations

Will not flash forth with their light;

The sun will be dark when it rises,

And the moon will not shed its light. (Isa. 13:9-10)

Significantly, Isaiah later prophesied the fall of Edom in terms of de-creation:

And all the host of heaven will wear away,

And the sky will be rolled up like a scroll;

All their hosts will also wither away

As a leaf withers from the vine,

Or as one withers from the fig tree. (Isa. 34:4)

Isaiah's contemporary, the prophet Amos, foretold the doom of Samaria (722 B.C.) in much the same way:

"And it will come about in that day,"

Declares the Lord GOD,

"That I shall make the sun go down at noon

And make the earth dark in broad daylight." (Amos 8:9)

Another example is from the prophet Ezekiel, who predicted the destruction of Egypt. God said this through Ezekiel:

"And when I extinguish you,

I will cover the heavens, and darken their stars;

I will cover the sun with a cloud,

And the moon shall not give its light.

All the shining lights in the heavens

I will darken over you

And will set darkness on your land,"

Declares the Lord GOD. (Ezek. 32:7-8)

It must be stressed that none of these events literally took place. God did not intend anyone to place a literalist construction on these statements. Poetically, however, all these things did happen: as far as these wicked nations were concerned, "the lights went out." This is simply figurative language, which would not surprise us at all if we were more familiar with the Bible and appreciative of its literary character."

So, we note the Jesus tells us when he's coming by the purposeful use of time texts:

But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (Mat 26:63-64)

You see, the Old Testament Jews knew what Jesus was getting at. They understood, though Ex-apologist does not. They read the words as they were intended to be understood by them. Jesus wasn't using 21st century terminology, Ex-apologist.

And so this is why we see this reaction from the High Priest. He spoke very familiar words to the High Priest, and the High Priest knew exactly what Jesus was insinuating. And for that reason, the Priest cried, "Blasphemy!"

"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy." (Mat 26:64-65)

Now why would that be, Ex-apologist? Could it be that a Jew, familiar with the Old Testament, would have remembered these passages:

Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne. (Psalm 97:2)

Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled. O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness , that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee? (Jer 4:13-14)

The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. (Nah 1:3)

That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers. And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung. (Zep 1:15-17)

Let's also note that Jesus said he would come "sitting at the right hand of power." If the "coming on clouds" is taken literaly, why not this? Maybe Jesus will surf clouds next to a big hand? How about this prophecy?

"God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel." (Acts 5:31)

Back to Jesus' claim that the High Priest would see him coming on the clouds. Why did the high Priest shout "Blasphemy!"?? He, and everyone else, knew precisely what Jesus was getting at. In the Old Testament it is The Lord who comes upon the clouds.

Why those Jews, at that time? Why where they judged?

As Jesus tells the Jews in Matthew 23 (interestingly right before he talks about the destruction of the temple in Matt 24),

"35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar."

And so we see that all the blood of the prophets, whom the Jews had constantly put to death, was going to come on them Who's "them?" Maybe "this generation?" What do I know, my views absurd. I mean, my view is that Jesus is using judgment language (i.e., riding on the clouds) to indict the Jews for killing the prophets, for being an unfaithful covenant bride, and for murdering the Lord of Glory himself. I've neatly tied everything together, showing the Bible to be consistent on this matter. But my view is "absurd" and Ex-apologist's view, where Jesus surfs clouds to earth throwing lightning bolts (or something), is not absurd.

Lastly, you conclude,

"Also, you mentioned the Book of Revelation as John's place where he has his full say about the eschaton. If you want to identify the Book of Revelation with John's predictions of the eschaton (leaving to the side the fact that few NT scholars will side with you about Johannine authorship of the Book of Revelation), then, as I said in my post, the author identifies the beast with Nero, which lands the orthodox Christian with yet another failed apocalyptic prediction in the 70s AD."

Well,

1. Who's the "majority" here? The majority of orthodox scholars see it that John did indeed author Revelation.

2. At any rate, at the end of the day, your argument from authority doesn't mean squat, so let's drop it.

3. Yeah, I think the beast (which comes from the sea) was Nero. And? Where's your argument? Looks like a fulfilled prophecy from my angle.

Your post didn't prove anything. You wrote:

"thus clearly indicating that the end was immanent"

And that's my position. But you must mean "end" as in "destruction of the physical heavens and earth" but where was that assumption argued for? Anyway, where does it say that the "beast" comes at "the end" of earth's history? In fact, the words "the end" are not mentioned in Revelation 13. So who knows where you're getting this stuff from.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

“Right. And that’s the problem. Conspicuous by their absence are the magic cosmic trees, the talking snake, etc. – see above.”

He keeps using the same buzzwords and catchphrases. “Cosmic” trees. “Magic trees,” &c.

Cosmic in what sense? They are not cosmic in scale.

Does he mean cosmic in their consequences?

But how would that render them merely symbolic or mythical?

You could just as well say the crucifixion was cosmic in its consequences. Or the Parousia.

Does that render the crucifixion account a nonrepresentational description which stands for something else?

Is the Parousia mythical because of its cosmic scope?

“The contradictions in the sequences, etc.”

No contradictions. Gen 2 is not a full-blown creation account. Rather, its viewpoint is localized. The creation of man and his immediate habitat (the garden).

So there’s no need to harmonize Gen 1 with Gen 2 since they don’t cover the same ground.

As to the allegation of internal contradictions respecting Gen 1 (day 1 in relation to day 4), Gene has already explained that relationship.

“I don’t use that word lightly, but advisedly. It’s really, literally a ridiculous interpretation to maintain if you believe the God’s world is real, and basically is at it appears. And yes, I’m completely aware of the pedantry that gets invoked by Steve and other who find themselves clever hiding behind the idea that we can’t *prove* the world is as it appears. I don’t claim we *can* prove such, and don’t seek or need to. That’s just belly-button gazing, this is the real world.”

This is coming from a man who believes in atomic theory, quantum mechanics, and the theory of relativity.

No one who subscribes to modern science is in any position to invoke common sense or naked eye observation as the standard of comparison. Modern science is committed to many counterintuitive theories, and a deep discrepancy between appearance and reality.

The Evangelutionist is attempting to play both sides of the fence. When you try that with a picket fence, you may impale yourself on your own duplicity.

“I think Wise is forgetting some of the major ‘terms of the text’; We have a ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’. We have a ‘tree of life’. Both are cosmic in their scope and supernatural powers, which is unusual for an historical account of a tree. And of course, we have a talking snake. In Numbers 22 we also have a talking animal, Balaam’s ass. But by verse 31 we have the angel of the LORD standing over Balaam, with sword in hand, and Balaam trembling, prostrate before him. Clearly to Balaam, and to us by the text, this was a miraculous intervention in animating the ass to rebuke Balaam. In the Genesis 3 account, Eve gives no indication of surprise to find herself being addressed by a snake. She is not laid prostrate by the angel of the LORD, we do not see a historical resolution testifying to extraordinary nature of the snake that talked.”

i) Notice how the Evangelutionist uses “mythical” and “miraculous” interchangeably.

ii) To say the two trees have “supernatural powers” is deeply misleading. In Scripture, God often attaches certain blessings or cursings to certain objects. For example, when the pagans captured the ark of the covenant and brought it into their temple, they suffered a plague (1 Sam 4-5).

This doesn’t mean the Biblical narrator regards the ark of the covenant as an unhistorical symbol or an object having supernatural powers.

The effect is coming from God, not the tangible token.

iii) I’ve done a lot of blogging on the serpent, as well as the donkey, so I won’t repeat all of that here and now.

But a modern reader, if he’s serious about understanding the text in light of original intent, has to ask himself what a “serpent” would signify to an ANE reader.

He needs to think about the “serpent,” not as something you find in your local pet store, but in terms of ANE ophiolatry and ophiomancy. The serpent as a numinous, occult being.

The name of the “serpent” is also a pun. To a Hebrew reader, it would trigger imprecatory associations.

iv) The talking donkey is meant to be unnatural and highly ironic, a point well brought out by Iain Duguid in his recent commentary on Numbers.

“Way at the other end of the Bible, we find the red dragon speaking blaspheming the name of God (Rev 12). This is a dragon with seven heads and ten horns. I think it’s the rare exegete that considers Revelation historical narrative, so here again is another symbolic utilization of an animal speaking. Is it a historical account? Not in the sense Wise is using it, I suggest. Is it perfectly *true*? I believe it is. These are mythic elements, the talking serpent, the trees with supernatural capabilities.”

This is a sloppy comparison on a couple of grounds:

i) We don’t treat Revelation as a historical narrative because it doesn’t belong to the genre of historical narrative. To begin with the genre of Revelation, and then classify Genesis by taking Revelation as the frame of comparison is hardly a scholarly procedure.

ii) In terms of intertextual parallels between Genesis and Revelation, Genesis is the primary text, while Revelation the secondary text. A secondary text doesn’t determine the meaning of a primary text.

“If you were to pick up a text that you were told was ‘true’, but contained the account of trees with supernatural, cosmic powers, and a talking serpent along with a pair of humans, would you suppose that the truth was *scientific* in its telling, or moral/figurative?”

Several issues:

i) That depends on which text we’re picking up. The distinction between an inspired text and an uninspired text is scarcely inconsequential.

ii) It also depends on your worldview. The average unbeliever would ask precisely the same sceptical question with respect to every supernatural agent or event in Scripture.

iii) Notice the false dichotomy between scientific and figurative.

The opposite of figurative or moral truth isn’t scientific truth.

Historical truths aren’t interchangeable with scientific truths. But this doesn’t mean that historical truths are merely moral or figurative.

“Would he find similarities for the book of Nehemiah in Babylonian mythology as exist between Genesis and Enuma Elish, or the Gilgamesh epic? Those are manifestly mythic texts, and I can’t see that Wise would be unfamiliar with those comparisons. Would he characterize Gilgamesh as an historical account in form, if false in its actual historicity? I’m not setting up either the Enuma Elish or Gilgamesh as truths or peers to Genesis theologically, but one must purposely ignore them to omit them from comparisons to the literary style of Genesis.”

Another slipshod comparison:

i) There are no specific parallels between Genesis and the Enuma Elish.

There have been some fanciful attempts to read certain parallels out of the Enuma Elish. What happens is that framework of Genesis is imposed on the Enuma Elish, everything disanalogous is discarded, then a few incidental elements in the Enuma Elish are raised to a higher level of abstraction and compared to analogous elements in Genesis.

ii) Yes, there appear to be some genuine parallels between the Biblical flood account and the Mesopotamian flood account. How is that “manifestly mythical?”

Since, according to Genesis, the ark came to rest in upper Mesopotamia, from which point the survivors fanned out to found Mesopotamian civilization (the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians), how does the existence of Mesopotamian flood traditions render the Biblical account suspect? Why wouldn’t we treat that material as corroborative evidence?

“Here’s a little project for you, the text of ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’.”

No, this text is not a little project for us. Rather, that’s a diversionary tactic which has nothing to do with either Biblical literature or cognate literary genres in that time and place.

“Well, that’s not a problem. If we were reading the Bible in a vacuum, with no real world around us, I think your demands would be more reasonable.”

Ancient Jews lived in the real world, too. And it’s “their” world which supplies the standard of comparison.

“We would probably read Isaiah telling us that the trees will clap their hands, and think that trees really *do* have hands, whatever trees are.”

The Evangelutionist is grasping at straws.

“But we don’t – I don’t – live in a vacuum, but instead in the real world God created for us. If we take the Bible seriously, we don’t maintain a “vacuum view”, a compartmentalized indulgence of some mystical version of the truth of the Bible.”

“Mystical.” He’s very fond of that word. It’s so much easier to use a pejorative adjective than it is to mount a reasoned argument.

“The Bible is real world. When Christians realize that their interpretations about the earth being the center of the universe is bogus, they ought to give way to a better interpretation of scripture that doesn’t offend God’s creation.”

The point of reference for that debate wasn’t Scripture, per se, but Ptolemy.

***QUOTE***

“The YEC literalist view just isn’t a serious view of scripture. It scoffs at God’s Word as something that is really true in the real world. I only need to have you read Steve’s recent replies to me as powerful evidence of this. The unbelievers see YEC theology, then think about what they know about God’s creation, even not knowing or admitting who created it all, and they see YEC theology as a powerful argument that Christianity is cynical hoax, the Gospel a lie. It’s only true if you can mysticalize yourself and tie yourself in horrible philosophical meta-scientific existential knots.

So my rationale for my “higher criticism” is this: YEC theology is cyanide for the spread of the Gospel. It’s Dawkins most powerful asset. He’s got nothing, nothing close to the powerful argument he has in merely pointing reasonable, honest folk at guys like Steve, and you, from what you’ve said here.

Is that good enough? Is the fact that your brittle, anachronistic, reductionist interpretive frameworks produce absurdities, logical contradictions and cascading conundra that drive people who think *away* from Christ a good enough reason to wonder if maybe you’ve got things off a bit? If the Gospel is true in a real and immanent way, a present and vital truth in the lives of real people in the real world, then YEC interpretations are completely unworkable.

***END-QUOTE***

Quick question: what do you get when you crossbreed a Pander Bear with a Groucho Marxist? Answer, a freak mutant hybrid popularly known as the Evangelutionist, but technically known as Ursus marxus.

The Pander Bear is notable for its chameleonic range of chromatic variation, which enables it to blend into whatever environment it is placed.

The Groucho Marxist is known for its distinctive mating call: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t’ like them, well, I got others.”

The family resemblance between Touchstone and Ursus marxus is uncanny.

Ursus marxus occupies a very limited habitat. On the one hand are specimens who come out of a conservative Christian background, have taken a left turn, but—for sentimental reasons—can’t bring themselves to make a clean break with the faith.

On the other hand are specimens who come out of a secular background, but feel a sentimental need for certain Christian values to fill the void, yet are unable to embrace the faith as a whole.

Specimens range from sophisticates like Bultmann, Rahner, and Ricoeur to cheap popularizers like Spong and Fosdick.

Modern man, so we’re told, can’t accept the precritical, prescientific view of Scripture.

i) It it’s most consistent and systematic form, Pander Bearishness treats the entire Bible as a symbolic code language, and then constructs a parallel belief-system in which every Biblical doctrine is simply a cipher corresponding to a suitably fashionable analogue.

ii) Notice how the Pander Bear begins, not with the question of what the Bible means, but the question of what people—meaning people like him—are prepared to believe. The Bible is then reconstrued to mean whatever people like him are prepared to believe.

iii) While Pander Bearishness is able to win over a few converts to the cause, what they believe is not the Bible itself, but the analogical system which has been superimposed on Scripture.

GME is a tasty recipe for make-believe. It raises a moist index finger to the wind, then discovers a convenient reinterpretation which just so happens to coincide with the scientistic flavor of the month.

For the Evangelutionist to accuse “us” of using an anachronistic paradigm when we employ the grammatico-historical method while he glosses the Bible to instantly dovetail with evolutionary biology, quantum cosmology, and historical geology is an amusing exercise in ink-blog exegesis, but has all the intellectual merits of using string theory as the prism through which to “truly” understand Dante’s literary universe.

The Bible means whatever it meant at the time it was written. It means what the author meant it to mean for his target audience.

While GME is able to win a few sweet-toothy converts to the cause, many unbelievers have no difficulty discerning in this hermeneutical method an exercise in special pleading and intellectual denial.

Truth is both unitive and divisive. Some people are drawn to the truth while others are repelled by the truth. That’s what made Jesus such a polarizing figure.

“If you want to be able to answer a colleagues question about ‘Hey whaddya think about that supernova on the news last night, almost makes me think there’s a God’ with something better than mumbling about metrical conventionalism, you’re gonna need a different crystal ball than the one you’re peering through.”

Observe how the Evangelutionist turns himself into a parody a King James Onlyist with a cage of snakes:

“Don’t you go a-messin’ with my head, what with that new-fangled, all-fired meTRIcal convenshunalISM. I’ll have none a-yer pointy-headed foolishness. If the earth looks flat, that’s good enuf fer me. I reckon the next thing your gonna palm off on me is that mountains-n-hills aren’t REALLY smaller at a distance.

Sorry I'm a bit rushed as it's Thanksgiving. But please don't mistake my curtness for rudeness. I'm just in a hurry.

I should also state at the outset that I see you've responded to Gene. But I've unfortunately not (yet) read your response to him. So, if you've already answered questions I raise here in your response to Gene, please let me know.

I think Wise is forgetting some of the major “terms of the text”; We have a “tree of knowledge of good and evil”. We have a “tree of life”. Both are *cosmic* in their scope and supernatural powers, which is unusual for an historical account of a tree.

1. I'm not sure what you mean by "cosmic in their scope and supernatural powers." Do you mean that by eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve "died" and/or that "death" entered into the creation (cf. Gen. 2:17; Rom. 8:21)? Or do you have something greater in mind?

2. Yes, the tree is obviously unusual -- historically or in any other way -- since the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not exactly your typical tree. Which the Genesis account duly affirms.

But this isn't a denial of the historicity of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or the tree of life. Or an argument that it should be taken allegorically rather than literally.

It still fits perfectly in line with a reading of Gen. 1-3 as historical narrative.

And of course, we have a talking snake. In Numbers 22 we also have a talking animal, Balaam’s ass. But by verse 31 we have the angel of the LORD standing over Balaam, with sword in hand, and Balaam trembling, prostrate before him. Clearly to Balaam, and to us by the text, this was a miraculous intervention in animating the ass to rebuke Balaam. In the Genesis 3 account, Eve gives no indication of surprise to find herself being addressed by a snake. She is not laid prostrate by the angel of the LORD, we do not see a historical resolution testifying to extraordinary nature of the snake that talked.

1. I don't understand why you draw parallels between the Balaam-donkey passage and the Eve-serpent passage. Why can't both be historical in their own right?

2. More specifically, it appears as though you're working with the premise that the Balaam-donkey story is historical. That's fine and I would agree.

But then you use the Balaam-donkey story as a contrast for the Eve-serpent story. And you indicate that the Eve-serpent story is not historical because it doesn't have certain elements which would mark themselves as historical narrative present in the Balaam-donkey story (e.g. there is a miraculous intervention in the Balaam-donkey story; Balaam is surprised whereas Eve is not; Balaam is laid prostrate whereas Eve is not).

Although I'm not sure why these particular elements would somehow indicate historicity in the one while not the other, in point of fact you've done no more than to describe the accounts as the Bible relates them. There's no argument for reading the texts as allegory or for not reading the texts as historical narrative (among other literary forms).

3. I'm also not sure what you mean by "we do not see a historical resolution testifying to extraordinary nature of the snake that talked." What kind of historical resolution are you looking for? Why would it not be historical to simply say the serpent spoke just as it is apparently historical to say that Balaam's donkey spoke?

4. The way in which you write about Adam and Eve, the serpent, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life appear to be more symbolic than allegorical.

On the other hand, it seems as though you take Balaam and his donkey literally.

Why the discrepancy?

At any rate, as far as I can tell, apart from drawing parallels between the Eve-serpent and Balaam-donkey stories (which are simply descriptive of the stories themselves and nothing more), there's no argument for why the Eve-serpent story should not be taken as historical narrative. Again, this is perhaps more problematic when it seems you believe the Balaam-donkey story should be read historically.

Way at the other end of the Bible, we find the red dragon speaking blaspheming the name of God (Rev 12). This is a dragon with seven heads and ten horns. I think it’s the rare exegete that considers Revelation historical narrative, so here again is another symbolic utilization of an animal speaking. Is it a historical account? Not in the sense Wise is using it, I suggest. Is it perfectly *true*? I believe it is. These are mythic elements, the talking serpent, the trees with supernatural capabilities. They are perfectly true in that convey a real history – the fall of man from the commission of sin. But the device used is figurative, and symbolic.

1. That's because Revelation is primarily considered apocalyptic or prophetic in genre. And yes, it does make use of symbols.

2. In the original quote I cited, Dr. Wise confined his argument to reading Genesis primarily as historical narrative. He made no mention of reading Revelation as historical narrative. So I'm not sure why you refer to Wise doing so, viz. "Not in the sense Wise is using it."

3. Speaking of which, you originally argued for treating Gen. 1-3 as allegory. But I should point out allegory is different than symbolism.

4. The mere fact that the Bible describes speaking animals (e.g. serpents, donkeys, dragons) in and of itself does nothing to argue for or against allegorizing certain portions of Scripture like Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11.

5. Of course, I have no problem reading certain parts of the Bible as allegory or seeing symbolic motifs or larger themes run throughout Scripture should the text warrant such a reading. For example, we see the story of redemption unfold through the Scriptures until its culmination and fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ Himself. Thus there is a redemptive-historical theme in Scripture itself. E.g. Luke 24:25-27: "And he said to them, 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."

6. As far as this question is concerned, what we need to ask ourselves is, where's the symbolic thread and how do we establish it? What's the basis for such and such a running theme? Does Scripture itself warrant it -- exegetically?

7. If you're allegorizing Gen. 1-3, and if you're claiming a theistic evolutionary worldview, what then would you make of a verse like Gen. 3:15: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel"?

On the one hand, I can read it as a historical event. God is actually and literally speaking to the serpent. Yet He is also making a specific promise that there will be enmity between the offspring or seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman.

Which leads me to likewise read it symbolically. Other portions of Scripture talk about the symbol of the seed of the woman.

What's more, we see it play out as a theme, for instance, in God's promise to Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Rachel and Leah. One commonality is that all these patriarchs and matriarchs were unable to bear children of their own accord. But God promised them offspring or seed. And thus they each gave birth to "children of promise" as it were. We see the final fulfillment of this in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ Himself.

That said, however, what I can't read Gen. 1-3 as is allegory, because if I did, then there would be no basis for a literal historical fulfillment. An allegorization of Gen. 1-3 let alone Gen. 1-11 would undercut the historical reality of the prophecy and its final fulfillment in Christ Jesus.

8. Again, I'm not disputing your argument that there are symbols in the Bible. Rather I'm disputing your reading of Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 primarily as allegory and that history properly begins in Gen. 4 or possibly Gen. 12. Therefore I should remind you (as well as myself) the original argument centered on these first few chapters of Genesis.

If you were to pick up a text that you were told was "true", but contained the account of trees with supernatural, cosmic powers, and a talking serpent along with a pair of humans, would you suppose that the truth was *scientific* in its telling, or moral/figurative?

1. I don't know why we have to limit ourselves to these two options.

2. But it would depend on the text.

3. As for the Bible, I'd primarily classify it as God's sole revelation or communication to mankind. In my view it's primary purpose is to reveal to us the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to teach us His redemptive plan. It is moral and it is figurative in parts and it is much more.

Also, Genesis is the “bootstrapping book”, the book that kicks of the written tradition, distilling what were previously oral narratives. While we can identify a lot of concrete history within it, but it’s manifestly *unlike* in its structure. If one is determined, fixed in a post-enlightenment reductionist frame, that Genesis must be completely historical-scientific, then one will simply see it all thus; There *is* no allegorical language that cannot be viewed as an historical account reified by an omnipotent God, if that is what is one is determined to do. All allegory capitulates to the powers of an omnipotent God. Could the red dragon be a red dragon in Rev 12? Could be, God could certainly ordain it thus. Is that the natural way to read Rev. 12? I don’t think so.

I don't hold to any of the positions you allege, viz. "a post-enlightenment reductionist frame, that Genesis must be completely historical-scientific...There *is* no allegorical language that cannot be viewed as an historical account reified by an omnipotent God."

Some parts of Genesis are decidedly historical. No doubt about it. I think this only represents a problem if one presumes that Genesis cannot and does not have historical and allegorical vectors. Does Wise identify Genesis as similar in form to other, competing cosmogonies of that time? Would he find similarities for the book of Nehemiah in Babylonian mythology as exist between Genesis and Enuma Elish, or the Gilgamesh epic? Those are manifestly mythic texts, and I can’t see that Wise would be unfamiliar with those comparisons. Would he characterize Gilgamesh as an historical account in form, if false in its actual historicity? I’m not setting up either the Enuma Elish or Gilgamesh as truths or peers to Genesis theologically, but one must purposely ignore them to omit them from comparisons to the literary style of Genesis.

Wise simply argues that Genesis should primarily be read as historical narrative. Nothing less, nothing more. He thus makes no mention let alone gives an opinion on other works like The Epic of Gilgamesh. So I don't think it's legitimate to impute to Wise anything else outside the scope of his argument.

"The historical texts in Genesis contrast with non-historical narrative. For the most part, seamless connections join the various Genesis accounts, including those widely accepted as historical. But the short, non-historical passages within the Genesis account -- for example, Adam's response at seeing Eve (Gen. 2:23) and the song of Lamech (Gen. 4:23-24) -- as well as poetic renditions of Genesis passages found in other places in Scripture (such as in Ps. 104) contrast sharply with the historical flavor of the Genesis text, including the creation account." [-- Dr. Kurt Wise]

This is Wise identifying for himself the historical flavor of Genesis text, “including the creation account”. This assumes its own conclusion. If everything else has a historical flavor but the parts he wants to except, well then it’s just historical by the definition of Kurt Wise.

On my reading, Wise is simply arguing that most of Genesis seems to primarily read as a continuous historical account. As such, the few sections of Genesis which do not flow in this continuum (e.g. the poetic sections) stand in stark contrast to the rest which do. If one reads the verses Wise does cite, it is evident they are poetic or at least not a historical account.

But he’s conspicuously omitting that the language of days is used in Gen. 1 prior to the creation of the earth – the object that anchors the idea of a ‘day’ (sunrise, sunset). Does that have a “historical flavor”? If one interprets the two creation accounts literally, they disagree in detail and sequence. Does Wise find this to be also demonstrative of historical flavor? These problems and more confound the man bent on rigid historical scientific readings of Genesis, but give way if they are simply regarded as perfectly true but *cosmogonic* in expression. The narrative has a strong compelling logic, but one that is cosmological and theological, not chronological or geological. So if Wise can read this as having “historical” flavor (Gen 1-3), I’d simply wonder how many historical complications he would have to identify before he might suppose he was approaching the text in a way it was never intended to be approached. An ancient Israelite learning the Pentateuch doesn’t have to be a scientific genius to understand the idea of days as sunrise/sunset cycles. When he reads that on the “first day”, with no earth or sun yet in the picture, the very things that came to define what a “day” was, there’s no need to appeal to some scientific knowledge base to understand that it doesn’t make sense in the literal reading. It was simply not an issue for him, he didn’t bring the burden of a commitment to identification of scientific mechanisms and chronologies that Wise apparently does here. Wise is projecting an anachronistic “worldview” onto the ancients, a perspective they would be mystified by. And probably amused by as well, I’d wager.

1. I don't have the time to go into detail about how best to intepret Gen. 1.

2. Also, I don't have the time to try and explain the apparent discrepancies between the two creation accounts.

3. But suffice it to say that Wise never argues that it should merely be looked at chronologically or geologically. Or rigidly historical and scientific. Or even that it should not be looked at cosmologically and theologically. Certainly not in the quote to which you responded. My point is that you should stick closely to his actual argument rather than to assume he argues for things which he may or may not argue based on a preconceived or perhaps stereotypical notion of what a YEC may or may not argue.

4. In this vein, no one said that we are not to view Gen. 1-3 as an ancient Israelite or Hebrew (or, actually, as someone in the time of Moses if we believe Moses mainly transcribed the Torah) viewed it. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise.

5. I think by historical flavor you mean something which is far more restrictive than what Wise means. As I read him, Wise merely means an account of literal, historical events. But as I understand you, it seems as though you're creating false dichotomies. Why read Genesis as solely "cosmological and theological"? That is, I don't see why we cannot read Gen. 1-3, say, as a literal, historical account of events as well as receive theological instruction from it? There doesn't need to be a dichotomy between the two.

"Scripture itself refers to Genesis as historical. The remainder of Scripture (Exod. 20:11; Neh. 9:6; Acts 17:22-29) and Jesus Himself (Matt. 19:4-6) speak of Genesis -- including the creation account -- as if it were to be taken as history. Likewise, most of the Jews and Christians through time have understood the Genesis account to be historical. Since the Genesis account is historical narrative and reliable, its clear claim of a six-day creation should be taken seriously." [-- Dr. Kurt Wise]

It *is* historical in a very real sense. God *create* the heavens and the earth. The allegorical elements in Genesis don’t change the fact that God did in fact create all there is, that Adam sinned and caused the Fall. There is no clear claim of six solar days in Genesis 1 – anyone aware of ‘day-age’ exegesis is familiar with that treatment. And it’s not something invented by Darwinists. Does Wise suppose Augustine and Origen were trying to serve the evolutionary agenda in their exegeses? I’m happy to respond to items you request, but it’s a telling sign when I see Wise beg the question like this --- the clear claim of six day creation. If Wise isn’t aware of day-age exegeses.

1. It seems that you have a proclivity for putting words into the mouths of others or attributing to them positions they have never clearly defined themselves.

2. How do you know Wise is not aware of day-age exegesis? Is it something you suppose Wise is unaware of simply because he is a YEC?

3. In his quote, Wise certainly didn't argue that we should only see "six solar days" in Gen. 1. I would presume he holds to a similar or related position, but he doesn't make that evident here.

4. Nevertheless, looking at it from the perspective of the ancient Hebrew, what do you suppose he would think of when he reads, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day...And there was evening and there was morning, the second day..."? And so on.

At a minimum, he would understand the passage of time defined in terms such as "evening," "morning," and "day." He would understand that "evening and morning" somehow equal "one day." This "one day" may not be an exact 24-hour day as we understand it, but the ancients understood when, for example, it was evening and when it was no longer evening, and when it was morning and when it was no longer morning.

Moreover, since we believe Moses wrote the Torah, he would've been speaking from the perspective of a Jew educated in the arts and sciences of Egypt. The Egyptians had sophisticated ways to keep track of time. They understood what a day was even if by our modern standards their measurements of time don't quite compare.

So did the Jews. The Jews had a detailed lunar calendar for their festivals, which they still celebrate today. In fact, up until the modern era, the Jews had always maintained a way to track the Sabbath on Friday evening. If I recall, one way was simply to look for the first star in the sky to appear Friday evening to commence the Sabbath.

The ancients were not unfamiliar with the concept of a day, or at least the passage of an evening and a morning equating to a day, even if they did not have atomic clocks by which to measure time.

OK, those are my “engagements” of Wise. Another YEC who assumes his consequent.

Again, it'd be more helpful if you didn't assume what the other side argues based on some preconceived notion you might have of their position.

Or better yet, it'd be helpful if you could likewise make a consistent case for why Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should not primarily be read as historical narrative and why it should primarily be read as allegory rather than falling back on long diatribes against imaginary opponents.